Park Service Displays at 2007 ESRI International User Conference

Comparison of LandFire and the Inventory and Monitoring Vegetation Mapping Program (IMVMP) Vegetation Mapping Products For Managing National Park Natural Resources:
Rocky Mountain National Park

1.0 Purpose of Study. The National Park Service requested a survey of Rocky Mountain National Park personnel with regard to the utility of Landfire Existing Vegetation map products and the Inventory and Monitoring Vegetation Mapping Program (IMVMP) map products for various park management activities and for map accuracy. The Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Group of the Bureau Reclamation was asked to conduct the survey. 2.0 Methods. The National Park Service requested a survey of Rocky Mountain National Park personnel with regard to the utility of Landfire Existing Vegetation map products and the Inventory and Monitoring Vegetation Mapping Program (IMVMP) map products for various park management activities and for map accuracy. The Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Group of the Bureau Reclamation was asked to conduct the survey. A survey questionnaire was also developed and approved by National Park Service management in Ft. Collins. This questionnaire, which asked park personnel to evaluate each map for (a. its utility for the management of a variety of park natural resources and potential hazards and (b. its thematic and positional accuracy, was sent to park personnel. Park personnel were asked to examine the map materials and fill out the questionnaire. It was requested that the most qualified park staff person score each question. Respondents were assured that their responses would be anonymous. The scoring scale is listed in Table 1.

A document explaining the methods used to develop each map product was also prepared and sent to the park. Once the survey result swere received back in the Remote Sensing and GIS office, they were compiled and summary descriptive calculations were made.

3.0 Study Results. The descriptive numbers that were calculated will give the reader an overall sense or impression as to the comparability of the two products. Table 2 summarizes the survey results.

Management suitability scores of zero indicated that the particular category was either left blank or was marked as "not applicable". These scores were left out of the total, mean, and median calculations. Out of a possible overall management utility score of 110, the Landfire map product received a score of 37 (33.6%) and the IMVMP product received a score of 109 (99.1%). The mean management utility score for the Landfire product was 1.68, compared with 4.95 for the IMVMP product. The medians were 1 and 5 respectively. Out of a possible overall map accuracy score of 10, the Landfire product received a score of 2 (20.0%) and the IMVMP product received a score of 10 (100.0%). The median map accuracy score for the Landfire product was 1 and the median score for the IMVMP product was 5. Out of a possible overall survey score of 120, the Landfire mapping product achieved a total score of 39 (32.5%) with a mean score of 1.63, while the IMVMP mapping product achieved a total score of 119 (99.2%) with a mean of 4.96. The Rocky Mountain National Park personnel left the "Implementing a conservation program" and "Other" categories blank and these were not, therefore, included in the compiled statistics. The only categories in which the Landfire data scored well were those devoted to fire fuels, fire modeling, and urban smoke issues.

Rocky Mountain National Park personnel generally gave Landfire lower marks for its suitability or usefulness for management activities. The park staff also tended to disagree that the Landfire data were thematically and positionally accurate. By contrast, the IMVMP data scored positively and highly in both areas.

4.0 Rocky Mountain National Park Comments. Rocky Mountain National Park personnel generally gave Landfire lower marks for its suitability or usefulness for management activities. The park staff also tended to disagree that the Landfire data were thematically and positionally accurate. By contrast, the IMVMP data scored positively and highly in both areas.

1. "General comment the landfire map lacks the detail needed to make management decisions for most vegetation and wildlife. It also lacks detail sufficient for climate change since some of the areas in the landfire map show forests occurring in what is really alpine tundra so how can one determine a change. Most climate change will be so small in scale or a long-term that the landfire map will not capture it but I have confidence in the detail of the IMVMP map."
2. "Over all I have concerns about the level of detail the landfire map provides, it is too generalized for making detailed management decisions in regards to wildlife, insects, exotics, diseases, veg and the climate change question. I believe it is okay for smoke management and managing fire fuels but when looking at the landfire map and the IMVMP map side by side there was a lot of inaccuracies for the landfire. Things like shading as an example in a steep cliff area was in places identified as forest. If I had to chose between the two, hands down the IMVMP is my choice as a land manager. Regarding climate change [name deleted to maintain anonymity] and I noticed in a couple areas where subalpine forest was identified in alpine tundra, talus and cliffs, so according to the landfire map, climate change has already changed the landscape. I sure would not go to congress with the landfire map in regards to climate change questions".

5.0 Discussion. Rocky Mountain National Park staff showed a preference for the IMVMP maps for nearly all of the categories of park management and also for thematic and positional map accuracy. The Landfire Existing Vegetation data were seen to be primarily useful for fire fighting activities.

Content by Douglas R. Clark and David Salas Remote Sensing and GIS Group, Bureau of Reclamation.

Links of interest:

• NPS Spatial Odyssey 2006
• Twenty-Seventh Annual ESRI International User Conference Page
• National Park Service Website
• NPS GIS Website

Back to GIS Conference Page

For NPS go to inside for more information about the conference